Previous research has suggested that differences in the size of extremely large displays can change how individuals perceive and react to the displayed content. However, are such effects also observed on small screen devices (i.e., smartphones)? Participants read a news article on either a small or a large smartphone display and rated their attitudes toward the material before and after reading. Results indicated that although participants remembered information equally well across the different smartphone displays, the larger smartphone display did produce a larger change in attitude toward the material. These results suggest that characteristics of smartphone design can impact perceptions of the content being viewed, fundamentally changing how one views some information that has been gathered on these mobile devices.
BlaneyP. H. (1986). Affect and memory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 229–246.
2.
ChenC. H.ChienY. H. (2005). Reading Chinese text on a small screen with RSVP. Displays, 26, 103–108.
3.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
ConwayA. R.KaneM. J.EngleR. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 547–552.
5.
de BruijneM.WijnantA. (2013). Comparing survey results obtained via mobile devices and computers: An experiment with a mobile web survey on a heterogeneous group of mobile devices versus a computer-assisted web survey. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 482–504.
FouhE.BreakironD. A.HamoudaS.FarghallyM. F.ShafferC. A. (2014). Exploring students learning behavior with an interactive etextbook in computer science courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 478–485.
HouJ.NamY.PengW.LeeK. M. (2012). Effects of screen size, viewing angle, and players’ immersion tendencies on game experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 617–623.
10.
IvoryJ. D.MageeR. G. (2009). You can’t take it with you? Effects of handheld portable media consoles on physiological and psychological responses to video game and movie content. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 291–297.
11.
KimD.KimD. J. (2012). Effect of screen size on multimedia vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 62–70.
12.
KimK. J.SundarS. S. (2016). Mobile persuasion: Can screen size and presentation mode make a difference to trust?Human Communication Research, 42, 45–70.
13.
LiebeU.GlenkK.OehlmannM.MeyerhoffJ. (2015). Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?Journal of Choice Modelling, 14, 17–31.
14.
LombardM.DittonT. B.GrabeM. E.ReichR. D. (1997). The role of screen size in viewer responses to television fare. Communication Reports, 10, 95–106.
15.
MavletovaA. (2013). Data quality in PC and mobile web surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 725–743.
16.
PeytchevA.HillC. A. (2010). Experiments in mobile web survey design similarities to other modes and unique considerations. Social Science Computer Review, 28, 319–335.
17.
ReevesB.LangA.KimE. Y.TatarD. (1999). The effects of screen size and message content on attention and arousal. Media Psychology, 1, 49–67.
18.
SanchezC. A.BranaghanR. J. (2011). Turning to learn: Screen orientation and reasoning with small devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 793–797.
19.
SanchezC. A.JaegerA. J. (2015). If it's hard to read, it changes how long you do it: Reading time as an explanation for perceptual fluency effects on judgment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 206–211.
20.
SchwarzN. (2011). Feelings-as-information theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1, 289–308.
21.
SevaR. R.HelanderM. G. (2009). The influence of cellular phone attributes on users’ affective experiences: A cultural comparison. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 341–346.
22.
SmithA. (2015). US smartphone use in 2015. Pew Research Center, 1.
23.
SongH.SchwarzN. (2008a). Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion. Social Cognition, 26, 791.
24.
SongH.SchwarzN. (2008b). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19, 986–988.
25.
StruminskayaB.WeyandtK.BosnjakM. (2015). The effects of questionnaire completion using mobile devices on data quality. Evidence from a probability-based general population panel. Analysis, 9, 261–292.
26.
TossellC. C.KortumP.ShepardC.RahmatiA.ZhongL. (2015). You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him learn: Smartphone use in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 713–724.
27.
UnsworthN.HeitzR. P.SchrockJ. C.EngleR. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.
28.
WellsT.BaileyJ. T.LinkM. W. (2013). Filling the void: Gaining a better understanding of tablet-based surveys. Survey Practice, 6, 1–9.
YueC. L.CastelA. D.BjorkR. A. (2013). When disfluency is—and is not—a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory & Cognition, 41, 229–241.
